Re: [PATCH v6 7/7] generic: Verify the inheritance behavior of FS_XFLAG_DAX flag in various combinations

[Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>]

On 2020/7/15 13:39, Xiao Yang wrote:
> On 2020/7/15 10:48, Ira Weiny wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 05:40:09PM +0800, Xiao Yang wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Xiao Yang<yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>> ---
>>>   tests/generic/605     | 199 
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   tests/generic/605.out |   2 +
>>>   tests/generic/group   |   1 +
>>>   3 files changed, 202 insertions(+)
>>>   create mode 100644 tests/generic/605
>>>   create mode 100644 tests/generic/605.out
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tests/generic/605 b/tests/generic/605
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 00000000..6924223a
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/tests/generic/605
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,199 @@
>>> +#! /bin/bash
>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>> +# Copyright (c) 2020 Fujitsu.  All Rights Reserved.
>>> +#
>>> +# FS QA Test 605
>>> +#
>>> +# Verify the inheritance behavior of FS_XFLAG_DAX flag in various 
>>> combinations.
>>> +# 1) New files and directories automatically inherit FS_XFLAG_DAX 
>>> from their parent directory.
>>> +# 2) cp operation make files and directories inherit the 
>>> FS_XFLAG_DAX from new parent directory.
>>> +# 3) mv operation make files and directories preserve the 
>>> FS_XFLAG_DAX from old parent directory.
>>> +# In addition, setting/clearing FS_XFLAG_DAX flag is not impacted 
>>> by dax mount options.
>>> +
>>> +seq=`basename $0`
>>> +seqres=$RESULT_DIR/$seq
>>> +echo "QA output created by $seq"
>>> +
>>> +here=`pwd`
>>> +tmp=/tmp/$$
>>> +status=1        # failure is the default!
>>> +trap "_cleanup; exit \$status" 0 1 2 3 15
>>> +
>>> +_cleanup()
>>> +{
>>> +    cd /
>>> +    rm -f $tmp.*
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +# get standard environment, filters and checks
>>> +. ./common/rc
>>> +. ./common/filter
>>> +
>>> +# remove previous $seqres.full before test
>>> +rm -f $seqres.full
>>> +
>>> +_supported_fs generic
>>> +_supported_os Linux
>>> +_require_scratch
>>> +_require_dax_iflag
>>> +_require_xfs_io_command "lsattr" "-v"
>>> +
>>> +check_xflag()
>>> +{
>>> +    local target=$1
>>> +    local exp_xflag=$2
>>> +
>>> +    if [ $exp_xflag -eq 0 ]; then
>>> +        _test_inode_flag dax $target&&  echo "$target has 
>>> unexpected FS_XFLAG_DAX flag"
>>> +    else
>>> +        _test_inode_flag dax $target || echo "$target doen't have 
>>> expected FS_XFLAG_DAX flag"
>>> +    fi
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +test_xflag_inheritance1()
>>> +{
>>> +    mkdir -p a
>>> +    $XFS_IO_PROG -c "chattr +x" a
>>> +    mkdir -p a/b/c
>>> +    touch a/b/c/d
>>> +
>>> +    check_xflag a 1
>>> +    check_xflag a/b 1
>>> +    check_xflag a/b/c 1
>>> +    check_xflag a/b/c/d 1
>>> +
>>> +    rm -rf a
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +test_xflag_inheritance2()
>>> +{
>>> +    mkdir -p a/b
>>> +    $XFS_IO_PROG -c "chattr +x" a
>>> +    mkdir -p a/b/c a/d
>>> +    touch a/b/c/e a/d/f
>>> +
>>> +    check_xflag a 1
>>> +    check_xflag a/b 0
>>> +    check_xflag a/b/c 0
>>> +    check_xflag a/b/c/e 0
>>> +    check_xflag a/d 1
>>> +    check_xflag a/d/f 1
>>> +
>>> +    rm -rf a
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +test_xflag_inheritance3()
>>> +{
>>> +    mkdir -p a/b
>>> +    $XFS_IO_PROG -c "chattr +x" a/b
>>> +    mkdir -p a/b/c a/d
>>> +    touch a/b/c/e a/d/f
>>> +
>>> +    check_xflag a 0
>>> +    check_xflag a/b 1
>>> +    check_xflag a/b/c 1
>>> +    check_xflag a/b/c/e 1
>>> +    check_xflag a/d 0
>>> +    check_xflag a/d/f 0
>>> +
>>> +    rm -rf a
>>> +}
>> It really seems like 2 and 3 test the same thing?
> Hi Ira,
>
> 2 constructs the following steps:
> 1) a is the parent directory of b
> 2) a doesn't have xflag and b has xflag
> 3) touch many directories/files in a and b
>
> 3 constructs the following steps:
> 1) a is the parent directory of b and b is the parent directory of c
> 2) a and c have xflag, and b doesn't have xflag
> 3) touch many directories/files in b and c
Hi Ira,

Sorry for misreading your comment, above is the difference between 3 and 4.
The correct one is:
2 constructs the following steps:
1) a is the parent directory of b
2) a has xflag and b doesn't have xflag
3) touch many directories/files in a and b

3 constructs the following steps:
1) a is the parent directory of b
2) a doesn't have xflag and b has xflag
3) touch many directories/files in a and b

Do you think they are same? I can remove one if you think so.

Best Regards,
Xiao Yang
>
> Do you think they are same? I can remove one if you think so.
>
>>> +
>>> +test_xflag_inheritance4()
>>> +{
>>> +    mkdir -p a
>>> +    $XFS_IO_PROG -c "chattr +x" a
>>> +    mkdir -p a/b/c
>>> +    $XFS_IO_PROG -c "chattr -x" a/b
>>> +    mkdir -p a/b/c/d a/b/e
>>> +    touch a/b/c/d/f a/b/e/g
>>> +
>>> +    check_xflag a 1
>>> +    check_xflag a/b 0
>>> +    check_xflag a/b/c 1
>>> +    check_xflag a/b/c/d 1
>>> +    check_xflag a/b/c/d/f 1
>>> +    check_xflag a/b/e 0
>>> +    check_xflag a/b/e/g 0
>>> +
>>> +    rm -rf a
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +test_xflag_inheritance5()
>>> +{
>>> +    mkdir -p a b
>>> +    $XFS_IO_PROG -c "chattr +x" a
>>> +    mkdir -p a/c a/d b/e b/f
>>> +    touch a/g b/h
>>> +
>>> +    cp -r a/c b/
>>> +    cp -r b/e a/
>>> +    cp -r a/g b/
>>> +    mv a/d b/
>>> +    mv b/f a/
>>> +    mv b/h a/
>>> +
>>> +    check_xflag b/c 0
>>> +    check_xflag b/d 1
>>> +    check_xflag a/e 1
>>> +    check_xflag a/f 0
>>> +    check_xflag b/g 0
>>> +    check_xflag a/h 0
>>> +
>>> +    rm -rf a b
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +do_xflag_tests()
>>> +{
>>> +    local option=$1
>>> +
>>> +    _scratch_mount "$option"
>>> +    cd $SCRATCH_MNT
>>> +
>>> +    for i in $(seq 1 5); do
>>> +        test_xflag_inheritance${i}
>>> +    done
>>> +
>>> +    cd ->  /dev/null
>>> +    _scratch_unmount
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +check_dax_mountopt()
>>> +{
>>> +    local option=$1
>>> +    local ret=0
>>> +
>>> +    _try_scratch_mount "-o $option">>  $seqres.full 2>&1 || return 1
>>> +
>>> +    # Match option name exactly
>>> +    _fs_options $SCRATCH_DEV | egrep -q "$option(,|$)" || ret=1
>>> +
>>> +    _scratch_unmount
>>> +
>>> +    return $ret
>>> +}
>> Should this be a common function?
>
> I am not sure if it should be a common function, because it may not be 
> used by other tests in future.
> I also consider to merge the function into 
> _require_scratch_dax_mountopt().
>
>>> +
>>> +do_tests()
>>> +{
>>> +    # Mount without dax option
>>> +    do_xflag_tests
>>> +
>>> +    # Mount with old dax option if fs only supports it.
>>> +    check_dax_mountopt "dax"&&  do_xflag_tests "-o dax"
>> I don't understand the order here.  If we are on an older kernel and 
>> the FS
>> only supports '-o dax' the do_xflag_tests will fail won't it?
>
> With both old dax and new dax, the inheritance behavior of 
> FS_XFLAG_DAX works well.
>
>> So shouldn't we do this first and bail/'not run' this test if that is 
>> the case?
>>
>> I really don't think there is any point in testing the old XFS 
>> behavior because
>> the FS_XFLAG_DAX had no effect.  So even if it is broken it does not 
>> matter.
>> Or perhaps I am missing something here?
>
> This test is designed to verify the inheritance behavior of 
> FS_XFLAG_DAX(not related to S_DAX)
> so I think it is fine for both old dax and new dax to run the test.
>
> Best Regards,
> Xiao Yang
>> Ira
>>
>>> +
>>> +    # Mount with new dax options if fs supports them.
>>> +    if check_dax_mountopt "dax=always"; then
>>> +        for dax_option in "dax=always" "dax=inode" "dax=never"; do
>>> +            do_xflag_tests "-o $dax_option"
>>> +        done
>>> +    fi
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +_scratch_mkfs>>  $seqres.full 2>&1
>>> +
>>> +do_tests
>>> +
>>> +# success, all done
>>> +echo "Silence is golden"
>>> +status=0
>>> +exit
>>> diff --git a/tests/generic/605.out b/tests/generic/605.out
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 00000000..1ae20049
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/tests/generic/605.out
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
>>> +QA output created by 605
>>> +Silence is golden
>>> diff --git a/tests/generic/group b/tests/generic/group
>>> index 676e0d2e..a8451862 100644
>>> --- a/tests/generic/group
>>> +++ b/tests/generic/group
>>> @@ -607,3 +607,4 @@
>>>   602 auto quick encrypt
>>>   603 auto attr quick dax
>>>   604 auto attr quick dax
>>> +605 auto attr quick dax
>>> -- 
>>> 2.21.0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> .
>>
>
>
>
> .
>